On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Roberta Maglione (robmgl) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> But in some closed solutions, multi-vendor interoperation is not the > >> No.1 consideration for customers. > > > If you think that multi-vendor interoperability is not needed what's > > the point of making a standard? Why discussing it here? You could > make > > your own choice for protocol without asking for WG opinion/consensus. > > Exactly, well said. > > I think the quote is taken out of context, that is not the main message in Bing's mail as far as I understood. Your mailer is chopping off the content which I copy here: >> Hi all, >> >> When I discuss ACP with some product people, they are always curious >> about why we choose RPL for routing. >> I understand the benefits of RPL in ACP, it is lightweight and much >> more scalable in a single routing area, but most of the non-IoT >> network devices seem like lack the support of RPL. >> >> So, please pardon my iteration on this problem, can we possibly make >> another more traditional IGP literally legal in the ACP document? (e.g. >> ISIS-autoconf or OSPFv3-autoconf) I know supporting multiple >> protocols would potentially cause interoperation issue. But in some >> closed solutions, multi-vendor interoperation is not the No.1 >> consideration for customers. If ACP allows ISIS-autoconf or >> OSPFv3-autoconf, I think ACP could be more widely adopted in non-IoT network devices. >> >> Any comments? Or eggs :) >> >> B.R. >> Bing Behcet > >
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
